Pages

Tuesday, October 14, 2014

Rejoinder to the trending 'Open Letter to Moderate Muslims'

‘REFORMING’ ISLAM?

Maryam Sakeenah

Notwithstanding its stated agenda, ISIS has managed to put
the conversation on Islam right at the centre of the global discourse. From celebrities to con artists
to apologists and Muslim scholars, all have their two cents to share on Islam.
Mr Ali A.Rizvi in his ‘Open Letter to Moderate Muslims’ published in The
Huffington Post has called for
‘reforming’ Islam. He writes that Muslim moderates inadvertently defend ISIS when
they attempt to defend Islam against allegations of violence and backwardness-
because ISIS follows most closely and literally the contents of Islam’s most
sacred texts. Moderates are at pains to explain away ISIS’s actions as
‘unIslamic’ through interpretation and contextualization of the sources of
Islam. Given the accessibility of information in this day and age, religion is
no longer shrouded in sacred mystery. Once the awareness of the sources of
religion explicitly sanctioning violent practices spreads, Rizvi argues,
sustaining faith in the indubitability and infallibility of the Quran would be
difficult.

There is a problem at the heart of Rizvi’s thesis: for
starters, he presumes that faith in Islam survives and thrives because its
adherents are unaware of its actual content due in part to the unfamiliarity
with Arabic and inaccessibility of information about its literal content. In one
fell sweep Mr Rizvi declares all faithful Muslims to be largely unaware of the
violent and diabolical contents of their religion- which, if brought into the
light of day, will expose the degenerate ethos of their religion and put its
naive believers to abject shame.

Most Muslims as a matter of faith do in fact take their
religious sources quite literally, yet do not conclude from it what ISIS does. Moderates like Reza Aslan
who call for a liberal reinterpretation and metaphorical/allegorical reading of religious content are but few. And
yet these billions of faithful and several hundreds of trained Islamic scholars
who take the Quran and hadith quite literally hold firmly to the conviction
that Islam is indeed ‘a religion of peace’. How do they arrive at this
generalization in the face of the actual literal texts of Islam that seem to
imply everything but that?

The problem with both
Rizvi’s thesis as well as ISIS is that both have lost sight of the ‘middleness’
that defines Islam. Muslim moderates too, when they put modernist
interpretation over the letter of the Quran to explain away violent meanings
the extremists may derive, lose sight of this. The essence of Islam is ‘adl’
and ‘tawazun’: (balance and middleness). The sources of Islam have contents
endorsing the use of force such as in the sources Rizvi cites in his article-
however, these very same sources also contain teachings that
command and celebrate peacemaking, justice, kindness, upholding of rights among other things. Looking at it purely quantitatively, the latter far
outweighs the former. The balance between these two sets of teaching is to be
found in order to develop the true Islamic worldview which mediates between the
two. This poised, comprehensive understanding does not need the prop of
reinterpretation, but understands that religion defines for us the extremities-
conduct in warfare through teachings of firmness and courage against the enemy
in war and strife, as well as, on the other end, teachings on forbearance and
kindness and mercy at all other times.

As
a teacher on Islam, I often feel the need to explain to my students the
apparent discrepancy between the examples of Prophet Muhammad (SAW)’s
forgiveness and mercy like the one at the Conquest of Makkah in which he
declared general pardon, and the instances when retributive justice and
execution of penal law or punitive measures were carried out. The two instances
stand for and delineate the two extremities of what our responses to wrong can
range from. The former stands for Ihsan
(unconditional good, more than what is justly due) and the latter for Adl
(absolute justice). While the latter is a necessary element a society must be
based on, the former- Allah tells us- is the superior virtue. The variation in
the Prophetic example leaves it to his followers to decide when and in what
circumstances each of the two is to be chosen as our response. Wisdom is to be
able to make that choice correctly, depending on the nature and gravity of the
situation one needs to respond to, the context and the likely consequences of
our choice.

To glean this holistic, seasoned vision is what Islam calls
‘hikmah’ (wisdom). When ‘hikmah’ is absent, the resultant understanding is
superficial, errant, flippant and unfair. That is precisely the mistake both
ISIS and Rizvi’s ‘Open Letter’ have made.

Another vital insight is that law and commandments exist for
and are bound by core ethical principles and values. Penal laws do not
operate detached from the ethical base and moral foundation. The laws of Islam
have to be understood holistically as guardians of the values that are the very
heart of the matter. Dissociated from the ethical content, they seem to be the
brutal and barbaric edicts that ISIS and Rizvi make them out to be.

The Quran says, ‘So give good tidings to My servants; those who listen to the
Word, and follow the best (meaning) in it: those are the ones whom Allah has
guided, and those are the ones endued with understanding.’ (39:17-18)Innumerable Quranic verses and ahadith are very explicit- whether taken
literally or figuratively- about the doing of good, delivering justice, making
peace, holding firm to what is true, keeping promises, being kind and gentle
etc. It is injustice to the Quran to pick out a few of its verses revealed in
specific circumstances - which are to be applied in those specific
circumstances within certain conditions, and take them to represent the entire
ethos of the Islamic religion, eclipsing its much larger content on humane and
egalitarian values. If these values were put at the core and followed as
zealously as the letter of the law is feverishly applied by fanatical groups,
Muslim societies today would come to epitomize the highest and worthiest in human
civilization. With reference to these much more numerous and substantive contents of Islam,
would following the very literal teaching of the Quran and sunnah engender
anything but universal justice and goodness? Rizvi’s premise is clearly
one-eyed. It does not hold ground.

Yet another problem is when Mr
Rizvi calls for an Islamic Reformation on the pattern of the Jewish and
Christian Reformation in the secular modern West. He is impressed with the fact
that Christians and Jews can reject the violent contents of their scriptures and
still retain faith and be considered part of their religious communities. There
always have been serious doubts and questions about the authenticity and
credibility of the contents of these scriptures even from within those
religious traditions, and this takes away the concept of their infallibility.
Yet there has been no such challenge of any serious proportions to the
authenticity of the Quran’s content. The Quran begins hence: “This is the Book about which there is no
doubt, a guidance for those conscious of Allah.” (2:2)

The call to ape the secular
reformation model is fundamentally problematic as it reeks strongly of
eurocentrism built on the neo-imperialist belief of the inherent superiority of
the Western model. Karen Armstrong has takenissue with those in the developed West who criticize ISIS
while failing to understand the dynamics and lessons of history that have led
to the rise of groups like ISIS. She writes,‘Many secular thinkers now regard
“religion” as inherently belligerent and intolerant, and an irrational,
backward and violent “other” to the peaceable and humane liberal state – an
attitude with an unfortunate echo of the colonialist view of indigenous peoples
as hopelessly “primitive”, mired in their benighted religious beliefs. There are
consequences to our failure to understand that our secularism, and its
understanding of the role of religion, is exceptional... when we look with
horror upon the travesty of Isis, we would be wise to acknowledge that its
barbaric violence may be, at least in part, the offspring of policies guided by
our disdain.’

The broken lens
Mr Ali A.Rizvi views the world from is a tainted one. This takes away from him
credibility as a well-meaning reformist offering prescriptions and fixes for
the ailing Muslim world. The prescription for reforming Muslim society lies
within Islam’s own ethos.